Enter your email to subscribe:

Click here to read about Nebraska State Sen. Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against God for "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants" filed in Douglas County District Court in Nebraska. Sen. Chambers probably expected to create a stir with his lawsuit, but what he probably didn't expect was a response from God.

On Wednesday of this week, God entered a special appearance arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and, subject thereto, argued that Plaintiff Chambers fundamentally misunderstands the nature and consequences of his gift of free will to mankind. Apparently, God hired a Corpus Christi, Texas lawyer to defend him.

God contacted me about the case earlier this week. I told Him to blow off the lawsuit and collaterally attack if and when Sen. Chambers tried to enforce the resulting default judgment against Him. God expressed concern about foregoing what He thought was a pretty good defense on the merits, and, alas, went with the Corpus Christi counsel. He may have also balked at my fee.--Counseller

TrackBack URL for this entry:$MTTrans>

Comments

Is the Corpus Christi lawyer subject to sanctions, at least absent some proof that God spoke to me and truly did retain his services, for filing a false pleading? Would it violate the Establishment Clause for the Court NOT to sanction him, since the Court then must affirm the existence of God?

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Sep 23, 2007 3:36:54 AM

Unless my impressions are incorrect, attourney's are subject to sanctions at the court's discretion, so as long as the court remains silent, it isn't required to affirm anything at all.

1) The so-called "establishment" clause makes no mention of the judiciary branch. The assumption behind the clause is that it is congress which does the legislating.

2) Please go back and read Chambers v. God. I do not believe that Chambers is mistaken in his notion that the court does, in fact, affirm the existence of God on a regular basis, and always has. Has the court been in violation of the establishment clause since it's inception? If it has, the constitution has no credibility.